We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

The most contentious health care provision would freeze $8.6 billion in previously authorized funding for portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) until courts resolve all challenges to their legality, but the freeze would not affect certain Medicare and Medicaid provisions. In addition, it would prevent federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide abortions, and would eliminate funding for the Title X family planning program. Other cuts include $200 million from Health and Human Services, as compared to 2011 levels, but the National Institutes of Health would see funding rise by 3.3% to $31.7 billion. While the bill is unlikely to reach the President’s desk, it could set the tone for the ongoing appropriations debate and inject another thread into the health care reform saga.

That saga could be poised for its final showdown, with the Obama Administration on Wednesday asking the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the legislation. This move comes after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a key provision of the law in August, in contrast to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the law last June. And the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed challenges as premature. The Administration is seeking resolution of this circuit split.

The root of the controversy is the mandate that individuals have health insurance or pay a fine. The original complaint filed by 26 attorney generals and the National Federation of Independent Businesses objects to the Administration’s argument that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution permits such a requirement. If the Justices hear the case, a decision is expected to come in the midst of the Presidential election, with likely significant consequences for candidates across the divide. Still, a ruling may not be as definitive as many hope, as the Court could, like the 4th Circuit, delay deciding on the mandate until enforcement of the individual mandate in 2015.

"Lexology is a good barometer of a firm's expertise as the articles showcase a firm's understanding of the issues involved and how up to date their knowledge is. It's a good one stop solution where one is able to view the same law/cases from different perspectives; on the whole I would rate Lexology as a good service."